Disposed

Smt. Shaik Saheen D/o. Yasin Ali, v. The Collector and District Magistrate

Telangana HC27 Dec 2023WP/5732/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking to declare void the cancellation of the petitioner's BC religious minority caste certificate. Acknowledging the lack of a prior opportunity of hearing, the court directed the petitioner to make a fresh representation. It ordered the 1st respondent to consider it and pass appropriate orders expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the petitioner to make a fresh representation; direction to the 1ст respondent to consider it and pass appropriate orders.

Smt. Shaik Saheen D/o. Yasin Ali, Vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

1 I I I

¶2

[³³⁰⁰ ]

¶3

HIGH COURT FO THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD ,^{X (Special OriginatJurisdiction)}

¶4

¶5

WEDNESDAY]THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTTCE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

¶8

¶9

Jr* lT PETITION NO: 5732 oF 2016

¶10

Between: fil

¶11

Smt. Shaik SaheEn D/o.^yasin. Ali, aged abou.t 24 yggq, Occ Secondary Grade Teacher,;' Government Pririary School,^{'XoaboatraO-ViiiJ"i} Harijanwada, Kethbpally Mandal, Nalgond6 DistriA.-^'

AND

ltr

...PETITIONER

1 . The Collector and istrict Magistrate, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District

¶17

The D-istrict Levdllscrutiny committee, Nargonda, rep. by its chairman-cumJoint Collector, Nalgonda District, Nalgondal

¶18

The State of Telangana,.. fgp. qy its principat Secretary, B.C. Welfare Department, Secretari-at Buildirigs, Hyderabad.

¶19

The State olf.9[a-;gar]q, [ep. by its principat Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabdd.

¶20

Shaik Abdul Rahman, S/o Janimiya, Aged about 25 yearc, F/o. Ranapuram village, Chilukur mandal, Nalgonda District.

¶21

B-!__i: -^{impleaded as per C.O.dr. 13.12.2023} in lA.No.?20i6 (WPMP.No.26474 ol 2O16).^'

¶22

...RESPONDENTS

¶23

petition ,"0", ilf|,",. 226 or theconstitution or tndia prayins that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or direction more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Proceedings No.H7l10412t2O,13 dated 16.02.2016 of the 1st respondent, as void, illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and contrary to Section 5 (1) of the A.P. (SC, ST and BC) Regutation of lssue of Community Certificates Act,'l 993.

¶24

i ,l

¶25

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2016^(WPMP . NO:^{7291 OF 2016)}

¶26

Petition ,nder Seiction 151 CPC^praying that^{in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed iJrstpport^{of the petition, the High Court may be pleasedto} suspend the Procee[ilb. n". H7t1o412r2o1s dated^16-02-2016 of the^1st respondent.

¶27

l.A. NO: 1OF 2017 P :718 OF 20'17

¶28

Between: ,i

¶29

Shaik Abdul Rahman, S/o. Janimiya,^{Aged about 25 years, Fi,/o.Ranapuram} village, Chilukur mandal, Nalgonda District.

¶30

ANO

¶31

¶32

..PETITIONER/5th RESPONDENT

¶33

1 Smt. Shaik Saheen D/o. Yasin^{Ali, aged about 24 years,Occ Secondary} Grade Teacher,c Govemment Primary^{School, Korlapahad Village'} Harijanwada, Kethepally Mandal, Nalgonda^District.

¶34

r I ...RESPoNDENTMRIT PETITIoNER

¶35

The Collecto, uria bi"tri"t^{Magistrate, Nalgonda,Nalgonda District.}

¶36

The District f-eJtilS".tinv^{Committee, Nalgonda' rep. by its Chairman-cum-} Joint Collector, Ndlgonda District,^Nalgonda.

¶37

The State or f8Lng"n",^rep. by^{its Principal Secretary,B.C. welfare} Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

¶38

The State of Telaniana,^{rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department,} Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

¶39

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONOENTS

¶40

Petition under Se ron^'151 CPC^praying that in the circumstances^stated in the affidavit filed in support of^{the petition,the High court may be pleasedto} vacate the interim orders made^{in WPMP.No. 7291of 2o16 in WP.No. 5732 of} 2016 dt. 23.O2.2016 and^{dismissthe Writ petition with exemplary costs.}

¶41

Counsel for the Petitioner:^{SRI S.JAGADISH} Counsel for the Respondent^{No.1, 2 & 4: GP FOR REVENUE} Counsel for the Respondent^{No.3: GP FORSOCIAL WELFARE} Counsel for the Respondent^{No.5: SRI DARA HARITHA KIRAN}

¶42

The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶43

¶44

¶45

THE HONOURABL^{E SRI JUSTICENAGESHBHEEMAPAKA}

¶46

UIRIT PETITION^{No-s732 0F 2016}

¶47

oRDER:

¶48

Heard learned^{counsel for the petitioner and learned} GovernmentPleaderforSocia]Welfareappearingforthe respondents.

¶49

The^{petitionerapproached the Court seeking the} following^prayer:

¶50

"...to issue^{a Wit, Order or directionmore in the nah)re} of Writ of^{Mandamusdeclaingthe Proceedings} No.H7/ 10412/^{2013 dated 16'02'2016of tlelst} respondent, as^{uoid,illegat, arbitrary and} unconstitutional^{and contrary to Section5(1) of tle A'P'} (SC, ST & BC)^{Regulation of Issue of Communitg} Certificates^{Act, 7993and} Pass"'"

¶51

The case of^{the petitioner is thatshe belongs to Muslim} Community^{which was included inGroup-E ofB'C'} Community^{as per the G.O'Ms'No'23 dated 07 'O7 '2OO7 'On} the application^{submitted by the petitioner'the Tahsildar'} Suryapet Mandal^{issued Community,Nativity and Date of} BirthCertificateinfavourofthepetitioneronls.o7.2ol2by

¶52

¶53

following the procedure contemplated under the A.P.^(SC, ST & BC) Regulation of Issue of Community Certihcates Act, 1993. It is further case of the petitioner that she was selected as Secondary Grade Teacher (Telugu Medium) in DSC 2OI2 in the quota reserved for BC - E Community and she^{was given} appointment order on 14.O3.2OI3, since then the petitioner continuing in the said post.

¶54

The main grievance of the petitioner is that one Smt.Nikhat Fathima and Abdul Rahman frled a complaint regarding the socia-l status of the petitioner ald others and the said complaint was referred to District kvel Scrutiny Committee headed by Chairman - cum - Joint Collector. Basing on the Photostat copies of the certifrcates produced by the complainant, the District Level Scrutiny Committee flrr.alized the enquiry and reported that the petitioner belongs to BC Muslim "B" Doodekula but not B.C.Muslim "E". Basing on the report, the l"t respondent passed the impugned order on 16.O2.2OL6 and without giving any notice or prior opportunity to the petitioner, the l"t respondent has cancelled her caste certificate and published the consequential Gazettee

I \

publication of cancelling the BC "E" Certificate issued to the petitioner on 1.6.O2.2016.

¶59

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that without giving alry reasonable opportunity, the 1"t respondent has issued the impugned proceedings by cancelling the caste certificate of the petitioner. Learned counsel further submitted that this Court^,ride order dated 23.02.2O16 tlas granted the interim suspension of the impugned proceedings dated 16.02.2016.

¶60

The counter alfrdavit has been hled by respondent No.1, wherein particular paragraph Nos.9 and 10 reads as under:

¶61

'9. In reply to para 6, it is submitted that, the caste certificate of Smt.SK.Shaheen, D/o.Yasin Ali was however carrcelled without giving an opportunity of making a representation. Hence, the l"t respondent may kindly be permitted to pass orders afresh on receiwing the representation from the petitioner.

¶62

lO. Hence, it is prayed that the Honble Court may be pleased to dispos€ of the writ petition giving liberty to the Ist respondent to pass orders afresh on receiwing tl.e representation from tlle petitioner in the interest of justice".

-_t

T-

Taking into consideration the submissions made by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents and duly considering the averments made in the counter affrdavit filed by respondent No.l (referred to and extracted above), this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to make a fresh representation to the l"t respondent, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on receipt of such representation, the 1st respondent is directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance to law expeditiously, preferably within a period of two weeks thereafter. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶69

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed D ASSISTANT^REGIST,RAR Ii trrRuE^coPY// t-y)"l' SECTION^OFFICER

¶70

To, 1. The Collector^{and District Magistrate' Nalgonda' Nalgonda District'} , The Chairman-cdm-Joint^{Collector' DistrictLevel Scrutiny Committee'}

¶71

Niigoftr. Nalgonda District, Nalgonda'

¶72

The^{Principal Se'lretary,B'C' Welfare Department' Secretariat Buildings'} Hvderabad,^{State of Telangana'}

¶73

a rne Principat, ildecretary,^{Revenue Department' Secretariat Buildings'} Hyderabad,^{Statd of Telangana'} t./

¶74

¶75

one cc^{to sRl sl'tircaorsn,AdvocatetoPucl}

¶76

one cc to^{sRl ijtrnnHenrftrA KRAN, Advocate toPUCl}

¶77

¶78

Two ccs to cpl^{ron soctAlWELFARE, Highcourt for the stateof} Telangana at^HYddrabad [OUT]

¶79

Two CCs^{to GP FOR} I^{REVENUE,High Court for the State of Telangena at} Hyderabad [OUT]^t

¶80

Two CD^CoPiesi

BSR GJP^..v

t.t. i,o

HIGH COURT

DATED: 27112ffi23

\ \

I ,

ORDER WP.No.5732 ot 1,.

¶90

1 H a s t'AI€
(
c
i 12 ,iAN 202[ l:(z

tO
DE P |.

¶91

¶92

,i I i

¶93

DISPOSING OF,THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS

¶94

s
pz

Smt. Shaik Saheen D/o. Yasin Ali, v. The Collector and District Magistrate

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Shaik Saheen D/o. Yasin Ali, v. The Collector and District Magistrate

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s. Herbopharm Laboratories, Vs A.P. Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Ltd.

Ijm Concrete Products Private Limited, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secrertary

D. Girija Vs The State of Telangana

Arpula Chandraiah Vs The State of Telangana

K. Sai Babu Vs The State of Telangana

Binju Saria Ispat (P) Ltd., Vs The Central Power Distribution Company Ltd.